Tony Abbott's latest budget pork pie

Tens of thousands of wealthier retirees will lose access to the age pension under changes targeting what Prime Minister Tony Abbott has described as "liquid assets millionaires".

Excuse me?

Every single one of these people receiving a part aged pension will continue to do so – it will just not be in the form of cash into their bank accounts.

Under Abbott’s sleight-of-hand the announced changes will lose them the small fortnightly cash transfers some currently receive, but they will all retain the highly financially lucrative seniors health card – a benefit worth thousands of dollars a year to the average retiree.

If you want proof of this just look at the paltry savings the Abbott Government is supposedly garnering from the this measure – a total of est. $177.7 million each year over the next four years.

An estimated 91,000 of those independent retirees (some of them millionaires) who structured their post-retirement assets, tax-free superannuation lump sums and income streams to allow themselves a regular federal government welfare payment and/or benefit, will lose their Centrelink cash transfer, but retain the right to bulk-billed medical services, heavily subsidised pharmaceuticals, subsidised public transport travel, telephone account concessions and, energy supplements etc via retention of the seniors health card.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Treasurer Joe Hockey, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann and the rest of their far-fight rabble must think Australian voters are fools if they expect them to swallow this politically convenient stop-gap measure aimed at neatly sidestepping the need for superannuation tax status reform.

Treasurer Joe Hockey spinning so hard he loses all memory of his own past media releases

It has become increasingly difficult to take this Australian Treasurer seriously.

He treats the economy as his political plaything.

Joe Hockey on Tuesday 4 December 2012

http://www.joehockey.com/media/transcripts/details.aspx?s=409

Joe Hockey on Tuesday 5 May 2015

http://www.joehockey.com/media/media-releases/details.aspx?r=481

Environmental vandals: the Abbott Government never learns from its mistakes

Geelong Star (Credit: ABC) 

Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) media releases tell a sad tale of lessons not learnt by the Abbott Government.

MISTAKE NO. 1 – allowing the super trawler to operate in Australian waters

Geelong Star meets AFMA requirements on arrival into Australia

Last updated 1 April 2015

Today (1 April 2015) officers from the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) met and inspected the Geelong Star, the mid-water trawl vessel nominated by Seafish Tasmania Pty Ltd in the Small Pelagic Fishery, upon its arrival into the port of Albany, Western Australia.

Officers from AFMA’s Bycatch and Compliance units conducted a detailed inspection of the vessel. AFMA Compliance officers confirmed that the Geelong Star has met AFMA’s strict conditions for fishing vessels entering Australia and that the GPS-based vessel tracking system is fully operational.

AFMA General Manger of Fisheries Operations, Mr Peter Venslovas said that the vessel passed all AFMA’s requirements for a new fishing vessel entering Australia waters.

“AFMA Compliance officers routinely conduct inspections of all fishing vessels in Commonwealth fisheries to ensure that they comply with AFMA’s strict management arrangements. Today’s inspection of the Geelong Star is just the first in what will become a regular event for this vessel when operating in the Small Pelagic Fishery” said Mr Venslovas.

Assessment by AFMA Bycatch officers confirmed the vessel’s ability to comply with AFMA’s requirements to minimise and monitor impacts on non-target species and the broader marine environment. Their inspection included a detailed assessment of the vessel’s Marine Mammal Excluder Device and the seabird bycatch mitigation devices required by AFMA.

An AFMA-approved Vessel Management Plan is required for all mid-water trawl vessels operating in the Small Pelagic Fishery and today’s inspection was a key step in AFMA’s process to finalise the necessary plan for the Geelong Star.

Vessel Management Plan conditions are in addition to, or re-inforce, AFMA’s standard operating and reporting obligations for all mid-water trawl vessels in the Small Pelagic Fishery. These detailed plans set out the individual vessel requirements to ensure fishing impacts on non-target marine wildlife and other fisheries (recreational and commercial) are minimised.

The Vessel Management Plan for the Geelong Star will be published on the AFMA website once it has been finalised. The Vessel Management Plan is subject to change by AFMA at any time in response to new information about the fishing operations or the marine environment.

MISTAKE NO. 2 – imagining that bycatch would not become a vexing issue

AFMA inspect the Geelong Star

Last updated 2 April 2015

On 1 April 2015, AFMA Compliance and Bycatch Officers inspected the Geelong Star, the mid-water trawl vessel recently nominated by Seafish Tasmania Pty Ltd in the Small Pelagic Fishery.

AFMA Compliance Officers confirmed the vessel met AFMA’s conditions for entry of fishing vessels to Australia and that AFMA’s tamper-proof, GPS-based vessel tracking system was correctly installed and fully operational.  The officers also collected detailed vessel information to assist them during future inspections to ensure compliance with AFMA’s catch limits and other management arrangements.

AFMA Bycatch Officers inspected the bycatch mitigation devices required by AFMA including the marine mammal excluder and seabird scaring devices installed on the Geelong Star’s mid-water trawl gear.  The officers also undertook an assessment of the vessel’s ability to comply with AFMA’s full suite of requirements to monitor and minimise impacts on non-target species and the broader marine environment and gave an educational presentation to the vessel’s skippers and crew advising them of the requirements.

Following AFMA’s initial inspection of the vessel, it will now work with the company, vessel crew and bycatch experts to finalise the Vessel Management Plan (VMP).  This plan will set out the detailed operational requirements that minimise the impact of fishing operations on non-target marine wildlife and other fisheries (recreational and commercial).  The conditions set out in the VMP are in addition to, or otherwise reinforce, AFMA’s standard operating and reporting conditions for all mid-water trawl vessels in the Small Pelagic Fishery.

All mid-water trawl vessels in the Small Pelagic Fishery must have an AFMA-approved VMP before commencing fishing operations.  Once finalised, AFMA will publish the VMP on our website.  Please note that the VMP is subject to change by AFMA at any time (even within a fishing trip) in response to new information about the fishing operations and/or the marine environment.

For more information read the FAQs for the Small Pelagic Fishery on the Small Pelagic Fishery page.

MISTAKE NO. 3 – Expecting a management plan to be effective re large marine animal bycatch for a factory ship expecting to catch up to 230 tonne a day in its small-fish nets with a 16,500 tonne quota limit

Geelong Star Vessel Management Plan

Last updated 22 April 2015

All mid-water trawl vessels in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery must have a vessel management plan approved by AFMA before they start fishing.  This is a legal requirement.

A vessel management plan is a comprehensive boat-specific plan to minimise the risk of interactions with protected species (e.g. seabirds, seals and dolphins). Vessel management plans contain both recommendations and mandatory measures that must be employed by the boat to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to minimise its impact on protected species.

Vessel management plans can be updated to ensure they take into account on-the-water experience and the latest developments in techniques to reduce interactions with protected species.

The Geelong Star Vessel Management Plan was updated on 22 April 2015. View the updated Geelong Star Vessel Management Plan.

MISTAKE NO. 5 – not posting an Australian Fisheries Management Authority media release on its website alerting the Australian public to the fact that during its first fishing voyage the Seafish Tasmania and Parlevliet & Van der Plas Beheer B.V. killed four protected dolphins and two protected seals in Geelong Star’s nets

ABC NEWS 28 April 2015: Tasmanian Government refuses to publicly denounce operation of factory trawler Geelong Star

                                                                                                                                         

MISTAKE NO. 6 – not admitting that allowing this super trawler to continue to operate is a political and environmental error

Geelong Star – operational update

Last updated 2 May 2015

Statement 2 May 2015

AFMA has been advised of four further dolphin mortalities from fishing by the Geelong Star, the vessel nominated by Seafish Tasmania Ltd to fish in the Small Pelagic Fishery. The mortalities occurred in one shot during the vessel’s second trip. AFMA has also been advised of two fur seal mortalities during the vessel’s second trip.

Consistent with the requirements of all vessels fishing in Commonwealth waters, the Geelong Star must report any interaction with protected species, including marine mammals like dolphins, fur seals or Australian sea lions.

AFMA takes any marine mammal mortalities seriously. We are disappointed that these additional dolphin and seal mortalities have occurred.

AFMA understands the Geelong Star is voluntarily returning to port because of the dolphin mortalities for a full review of its marine mammal exclusion equipment. AFMA will participate in the review to determine how to minimise further marine mammal interactions. The vessel will also be inspected by AFMA officers when it arrives in port to ensure all catch documentation is in order.

MISTAKE NO. 7 – a weak response from the Federal Minister for the Environment and Liberal Member for Flinders, Greg Hunt, who did not post a ministerial media release on the subject and only made a statement on 3 May 2015 to journalists saying that he would write a letter or two

ABC News 3 May 2014 Greg Hunt condemns factory trawler Geelong Star's dolphin deaths as 'unacceptable and outrageous'

In Abbott's Australia things are improving - citizens are getting told "No" faster

Since the Abbott Government came to power in September 2013 information from government departments has been somewhat more difficult to obtain.

Websites have been redesigned in such a way that data is often buried layers deep with no obvious links on the home page, telephone queries are often answered more guardedly than before and now it seems that Freedom of Information (FOI) requests are being answered within an acceptable time frame but with those answers more likely to be a Yes, but or an outright No to releasing information if the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) December 2014 report on the Department of Human Services is any indication.

The Information Commissioner noted in relation to the Dept. of Human Services that between 2011–12 and 2013–14 there was: a) an increase in the department’s use of the FOI Act practical refusal mechanism, from 33 occasions in 2011–12 to 777 in 2013–14;  b) a decline in the number of FOI requests to which access to documents was given in full, from 58% of requests in 2011–12 to 26% in 2013–14; and c) an increase in the number of applications for Information Commissioner (IC) review of the department’s access refusal decisions, from 49 IC review applications in 2011–12 to 95 in 2013–14.

So how do other federal government departments which handle ‘sensitive’ information rate when it comes to the ease with which publicly available information can be obtained regarding their response to FOI requests?

Well there does appear to have been some improvements in time between FOI request received and reply sent by other government departments in the same period covered by the OAIC report.

However……………..

The Dept. of Immigration and Border Protection very cutely informs readers of its 2013-14 Annual Report of the high number of FOI requests it finalised in that financial year – but not the total number of these requests which resulted in a partial or complete refusal of requested data/information. The department’s disclosure logs give no indication as to whether documents supplied under FOI requests were redacted in the 2013 section, but do indicate which document releases were full/partial in the 2014 section of that financial year.

Given this department finalised 14,923 FOI requests in 2013-14, the relatively small number listed in the disclosure logs leads one to suspect that a great many requests were refused.

Of the 146 FOI requests which appear to have been finalised by the Dept. of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) in the 2013-14 financial year only 8 are listed as having been released as full or partially redacted documents and 3 are elsewhere listed as being rejected outright. The status of the remaining 135 FOI requests is uncertain.

In August 2014 this is what one released DPMC document looked like:

The content of which could not be more obscure.

The Australian Attorney-General’s Department website lists approximately 40 documents released under Freedom of Information in 2013-14 but there are no details published online and one must contact the department directly for information on these documents. The department’s annual report for that year does not list the number of FOI requests received or finalised.

According to its annual report the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) received 768 FOI requests in 2013-14 but only lists 9 finalised FOI requests for that period in its online disclosure log. The status of the remaining 759 is unknown. A number of the documents that were released are heavily redacted. 

Treasury displays 13 FOI requests on the departmental website for 2013-14. A number of documents are redacted and there is one refusal recorded. However, neither Treasury's website or annual report for that financial year state the number of FOI requests received or finalised in that year.

All in all, a suspicion forms that freedom of information is more honoured in concept than in fact by a government led by Tony Abbott, who before he became prime minister stated an alleged belief that; we should have a government which is transparent and open.

Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance: "This has been a dire 12 months for the state of press freedom in Australia"

Forward to the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA) 2015 Australian Press Freedom Report:

This has been a dire 12 months for the state of press freedom in Australia — for journalists, for the communities we serve and for sources that trust us to tell their stories.

On October 30 last year, Attorney-General George Brandis admitted that the controversial section 35P of the Government’s first tranche of national security laws was written with the aim of targeting whistleblowers. “It was primarily, in fact, to deal with a Snowden-type situation,” he said. Whistleblower Edward Snowden had worked with journalists to reveal US government officials had routinely and deliberately broken the law. [1]

On February 27 this year, the report of Parliament’s Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security revealed that targeting whistleblowers was one of the aims of its metadata retention scheme. Recommendation 27 of the committee’s report said journalists’ metadata would be accessed “for the purpose of determining the identity of a journalist’s sources”.

Public interest journalism relies on whistleblowers, the confidential sources that provide crucial information to journalists — sometimes placing both at great risk.

It is a well-known ethical principle of journalism that journalists do not reveal their confidential sources. It’s a principle that is vigorously defended because it is the only way many vital stories in the public interest can ever be told. Whistleblowers turn to journalists to help expose misconduct, illegality, fraud, threats to health and safety, and corruption. Our communities are the better for their courageous efforts to ensure the public’s right to know.

If the identity of whistleblowers can be revealed then that has a chilling effect on public interest journalism; sources needing anonymity cannot rely on their contact with a journalist being kept secret. When that happens, we all lose.

The politicians who ignored press freedom concerns about the raft of national security laws failed to understand how confidential sources and public interest journalism are linked.

If you are going after whistleblowers, you are going after journalism.

And even when they did register the concerns for press freedom, their solutions failed miserably. Take the so-called “safeguard” of journalist information warrants introduced as an amendment to the data retention scheme. The journalist information warrant will operate in secret on pain of a two-year jail term. It relies on “public interest advocates” appointed by the government. It will still allow a journalists’ metadata to be accessed to identify a journalist’s sources, and the journalist and their media organisation will never know access was granted. Nor will they be able to argue the public interest in protecting the identity of a whistleblower.

In short, the three tranches of national security legislation passed by the Parliament represent a colossal failure to stand up for press freedom, freedom of expression, privacy, freedom to access information and the public’s right to know.

As this 2015 report into the state of press freedom in Australia shows, press freedom has been under assault in many other areas. South Australia continues to reject attempts to introduce a shield law, thus exposing journalists throughout Australia to the prospect of plaintiffs going “jurisdiction shopping”.

Tasmania briefly considered breaking away from the uniform national defamation scheme to reintroduce the prospect of corporations suing for damages.

Freedom of information law reform continues to linger in limbo due to successive governments’ inaction and a lack of courage in embracing sensible remedies that ensure the public can benefit from truly open government.

And while we are all delighted at the release and homecoming of Peter Greste from his Cairo prison, the re-trial of Peter and his colleagues goes on. MEAA is also awaiting the fate of Australian journalist Alan Morison who faces up to seven years in a Thai jail for reprinting a paragraph from a Reuters news report.

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the murder of our colleagues Brian Peters, Malcolm Rennie, Tony Stewart, Gary Cunningham and Greg Shackleton in Balibo and Roger East in Dili in East Timor. MEAA is disappointed that the AFP spent five years on examining these war crimes only to abandon their investigation without seeking any co-operation from Indonesia and “without any interaction with their counterparts, the Indonesian National Police. The result is that impunity has triumphed and the killers of the Balibo Five and Roger East have literally got away with murder.

It can only be hoped that over the coming year, greater effort will be made by governments, politicians, government agencies and those who like to talk about championing press freedom to turn away from repressing freedom of expression and actually respect and promote it.

Paul Murphy
CEO MEAA

Brief background on Australian journalist Alan Morison here.

Another step down the path to fascism in Abbott's Australia

In Abbott’s Australia indirect government control of media and investigative journalists - through fear of arrest, trial and gaol sentence – is becoming entrenched through federal legislation.

The Guardian 27 April 2015:

Journalists who report on serious wrongdoing by Australian intelligence officers may still face prosecution under new national security laws, according to the commonwealth director of public prosecutions (CDPP).

Australia’s acting independent national security legislation monitor, Roger Gyles QC, is considering the impact of a new section inserted into the Asio Act in 2014 – section 35P – which would criminalise disclosure of information that relates to a “special intelligence operation”.

Gyles was scheduled to hold hearings on Monday as part of his inquiry into the laws, which were passed by the federal parliament with Labor’s support in 2014.

The new section has sparked concerns among news organisations, human rights groups and some opposition politicians. Journalists and whistleblowers may face jail for up to 10 years if they breach the disclosure offence.

There is no public interest consideration or defence that would allow a journalist to report on intelligence matters. But for a prosecution to be initiated by the CDPP, a public interest test must still be applied. The federal government relied in part on this check to reassure journalists who were critical of the new laws.

Unusually, the CDPP outlines two hypothetical scenarios that reporters might be placed in to consider whether it would proceed with a prosecution in a submission to Gyles’s inquiry.

In one scenario a journalist receives information about “serious wrongdoing by a commonwealth officer in the course of a special intelligence operation”. The journalist contacts Asio, which refuses to confirm or deny whether a special intelligence operation is under way, and eventually the journalist publishes the information.

While the CDPP indicates the public interest considerations would not favour a prosecution, it indicates that it might still consider the possibility.

“This scenario may well be one in which the public interest considerations either favour no prosecution taking place, or are ‘finely balanced’. As stated above the matters that will be taken into account in assessing whether or not a prosecution is in the public interest will be different in every matter,” the CDPP submission said.

The admission is likely to raise further concerns about the potential chilling effect the disclosure laws could have on the media.

ABC The Drum 17 March 2015:

The Coalition's push to save and search all of our metadata for at least two years will have a chilling effect on press freedom.

Journalists' sources will be compromised by metadata collection. Without the ability to interact with confidential sources without the government finding out, journalists may as well give the game away.

Even with the yet-unseen government amendments proposed yesterday, after negotiations with the Opposition, Australia is going in the opposite direction of our two closest allies the United States and the UK.

Requiring a warrant before searching journalists' metadata sounds like a modicum of protection. The public discussion around it indicates it will just be a "tick and flick" approach and won't give journalists or media organisations the right to argue their case.

The warrants will be obtained in secret and media organisations will be none the wiser.

A distressingly familiar list in Abbott's Australia

Australian Prime Minister Anthony John 'Tony' Abbott 

So far in Abbott's Australia thirteen of the fourteen signs of fascism have become obvious elements in the national government's interaction with citizens and/or in the formation of government policies.

Fourteen Signs of Fascism*

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism—Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. 

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights—Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need".  The people tend to 'look the other way' or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. 

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause—The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. 

4. Supremacy of the Military—Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. 

5. Rampant Sexism—The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy. 

6. Controlled Mass Media—Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common. 

7. Obsession with National Security—Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. 

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined—Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. 

9. Corporate Power is Protected—The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. 

10. Labour Power is Suppressed—Because the organizing power of labour is the only real threat to a fascist government, labour unions are either eliminated entirely or are severely suppressed. 

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts—Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free-expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment—Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego civil liberties, in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption—Fascist regimes are almost always governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions, and who use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections—Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against (or even the assassination of) opposition candidates, the use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and the manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

* Attributed to Dr. Lawrence Britt, a name which is possibly a pseudonym

* Photographs found at Google Images

Is Abbott living in a perpetual political phantasy land unable any longer to distinguish truth from lies?

This was Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott altering political history on a whim on 28 March 2015:

Mitch Fifield, the architect of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, who will deliver a genuinely insurance-based scheme which will benefit a half a million Australians with disabilities and everyone who cares for them and which will have its head office in Geelong.

Perhaps someone should remind Abbott that the Australian Parliamentary Library clearly identifies who set the National Disability Insurance Scheme in motion and laid out its basic structure:

On 30 April 2012, the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, announced that the Government would fund its ‘share’ of the cost of the first stage of the NDIS in the 2012–13 Budget.[10] The Government’s NDIS media release accompanying the Budget states that its share includes ‘the total administration and running costs for the first stage of an NDIS’.[11] In addition the media release says that ‘states and territories that host the initial locations will also be required to contribute to the cost of personal care and support for people with disability’. At this stage, it is not clear what the Government has in mind as ‘locations’ for the first stage of the NDIS but the Commission’s proposal was for ‘regions that each contained a modest number of people who were likely to be eligible for the scheme (say, around 10 000 per region)’.[12] Commencement of the NDIS in 2013 is one year ahead of the timetable proposed by the Commission.

The $1.0 billion to be provided by the Australian Government includes:

* $342.5 million over three years from July next year for individually funded packages for people with significant and permanent disability

* $154.8 million over three years from July next year to employ Local Area Coordinators to provide an individualised approach to delivering care and support to people with a disability

* $58.6 million over three years from July next year to assess the needs of people with a disability in the launch locations

* $122.6 million over four years to start preparing the disability sector for the new way of delivering disability services

* $240.3 million over four years to build and operate an NDIS information technology system and

* $53.0 million over four years to establish a new National Disability Transition Agency to coordinate implementation and manage the delivery of care and support to people with a disability and their carers in the initial launch locations from 2013–14.[13]

During the final days of the Gillard Labor Government ABC News reported on 3 June 2013:

...the regional Victorian city has been chosen as the headquarters of the new DisabilityCare agency.

All states and territories - except Western Australia - have signed up to be part of the scheme, formerly known as the NDIS.

Once DisabilityCare is fully rolled out, the national headquarters in Geelong will employ 300 people, in addition to 150 people in the regional office......

The Barwon region of south-west Victoria, which includes Geelong, was chosen last year as one of the sites where DisabilityCare would be trialled. The trial will start on July 1 and involve 5,000 people.

Mental health report and recommendations that the Abbott Government didn't want you to see until it had worked out how to pass the buck to the states

Australian Health Minister Sussan Ley has had the four-volume National Review of Mental Health Programmes and Services since 1 December 2014.

Despite the report being leaked to Crikey, she insisted on 15 April 2015 that; there was no sense in releasing the report before the Government had formulated a response.

On 19 April Crikey Insider sent out access links to all four volumes to its readers.

The Abbott Government has now released the full report which can be read at leisure on the Mental Health Commission website.

The report makes 25 recommendations:

Summary of recommendations

1. Set clear roles and accountabilities to shape a person-centred mental health system

Rec 1. Agree the Commonwealth’s role in mental health is through national leadership

and regional integration, including integrated primary and mental health care.

Rec 2. Develop, agree and implement a National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention

Plan with states and territories, in collaboration with people with lived

experience, their families and support people.

Rec 3. Urgently clarify the eligibility criteria for access to the National Disability

Insurance Scheme (NDIS) for people with disability arising from mental illness

and ensure the provision of current funding into the NDIS allows for a significant

Tier 2 system of community supports.

2. Agree and implement national targets and local organisational performance measures

Rec 4. Adopt a small number of important, ambitious and achievable national targets

to guide policy decisions and directions in mental health and suicide prevention.

Rec 5. Make Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health a national priority and

agree an additional COAG Closing the Gap target specifically for mental health.

Rec 6. Tie receipt of ongoing Commonwealth funding for government, NGO and

privately provided services to demonstrated performance, and use of a single

care plan and eHealth record for those with complex needs.

3. Shift funding priorities from hospitals and income support to community and primary health care services

Rec 7. Reallocate a minimum of $1 billion in Commonwealth acute hospital funding in

the forward estimates over the five years from 2017–18 into more community based

psychosocial, primary and community mental health services.

Rec 8. Extend the scope of Primary Health Networks (renamed Primary and Mental

Health Networks – PMHNs) as the key regional architecture for equitable

planning and purchasing of mental health programmes, services and integrated

care pathways.

Rec 9. Bundle-up programmes and boost the role and capacity of NGOs and other

service providers to provide more comprehensive, integrated and higher-level

mental health services and support for people, their families and supporters.

Rec 10. Improve service equity for rural and remote communities through place-based

models of care.

4. Empower and support self-care and implement a new model of stepped care across Australia

Rec 11. Promote easy access to self-help options to help people, their families and

communities to support themselves and each other, and improve ease of

navigation for stepping through the mental health system.

Rec 12. Strengthen the central role of GPs in mental health care through incentives for

use of evidence-based practice guidelines, changes to the Medicare Benefits

Schedule and staged implementation of Medical Homes for Mental Health.

Rec 13. Enhance access to the Better Access programme for those who need it most

through changed eligibility and payment arrangements and a more equitable

geographical distribution of psychological services.

Rec 14. Introduce incentives to include pharmacists as key members of the mental

health care team.

5. Promote the wellbeing and mental health of the Australian community, beginning with a healthy start to life

Rec 15. Build resilience and targeted interventions for families with children, both

collectively and with those with emerging behavioural issues, distress and

mental health difficulties.

Rec 16. Identify, develop and implement a national framework to support families and

communities in the prevention of trauma from maltreatment during infancy and

early childhood, and to support those impacted by childhood trauma.

Rec 17. Use evidence, evaluation and incentives to reduce stigma, build capacity and

respond to the diversity of needs of different population groups.

6. Expand dedicated mental health and social and emotional wellbeing teams for

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people

Rec 18. Establish mental health and social and emotional wellbeing teams in Indigenous

Primary Health Care Organisations (including Aboriginal Community-Controlled

Services), linked to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander specialist mental health

services.

7. Reduce suicides and suicide attempts by 50 per cent over the next decade

Rec 19. Establish 12 regions across Australia as the first wave for nationwide

introduction of sustainable, comprehensive, whole-of-community approaches to

suicide prevention.

8. Build workforce and research capacity to support systems change

Rec 20. Improve research capacity and impact by doubling the share of existing and

future allocations of research funding for mental health over the next five years,

with a priority on supporting strategic research that responds to policy

directions and community needs.

Rec 21. Improve supply, productivity and access for mental health nurses and the

mental health peer workforce.

Rec 22. Improve education and training of the mental health and associated workforce

to deploy evidence-based treatment.

Rec 23. Require evidence-based approaches on mental health and wellbeing to be

adopted in early childhood worker and teacher training and continuing

professional development.

9. Improve access to services and support through innovative technologies

Rec 24. Improve emergency access to the right telephone and internet-based forms of

crisis support and link crisis support services to ongoing online and offline forms

of information/education, monitoring and clinical intervention.

Rec 25. Implement cost-effective second and third generation e-mental health solutions

that build sustained self-help, link to biometric monitoring and provide direct clinical
support strategies or enhance the effectiveness of local services.

It took some time for Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki to understand that the 2015 Intergenerational Report was always a politically partisan document created by the Abbott Government

Screen shot from www.challengeofchange.gov.au

On 5 March 2015 Abbott Government released its 2015 Intergenerational Report

“Dr. Karl” begins to voice doubts about the report in The Canberra Times on 14 April 2015:

The man appearing on television screens across the country promoting the Abbott government's Intergenerational Report - science broadcaster Karl Kruszelnicki - has hardened his stance against the document, describing it as "flawed" and admitting to concerns that it was "fiddled with" by the government.

Dr Kruszelnicki, widely known as Dr Karl, has previously revealed that he had not read the full report before he agreed to front the taxpayer-funded campaign, which is expected to cost millions.

The Intergenerational Report - a snapshot of Australia's economy and society in 40 years - was criticised by Labor as a "highly political document" for, among other things, downgrading climate change from its own chapter in 2010 to three-and-a-half pages in 2015.

"As far as I can see, it's a flawed report," Dr Kruszelnicki told Fairfax Media.

He singled out the reduced focus on climate change in this year's report for criticism. "In no way am I endorsing the government's stance on climate change. I think it is incredibly short-sighted," he said. 

Dr Kruszelnicki - who has appeared in advertisements for the report running prominently on commercial television, news websites and social media - has also tweeted comments criticising the government for cutting funding to the CSIRO. The report emphasises the value of scientific research and innovation. 

Dr Kruszelnicki said: "The only reason I agreed to do it [promote the report] is because I was told that it would be independent, bipartisan and non-political.

"If it turns out to have been fiddled with or subject to political interference from one side of politics I would deeply regret playing any part in it whatsoever."

Dr Kruszelnicki said he agreed to front the campaign after reading extracts on the ageing of the population and the changing nature of work.

He said the independence of the document is now unclear.

Unfortunately at that stage he still appears to believe that the report was created by the Australian Treasury and public servants. Hence, the idea that it may have been “fiddled with” once it left their hands.

The Abbott Government did not have to fiddle with the report – the entire document was assembled at the direction of government ministers.

Thirteen days after the report’s release the Deputy Secretary, Fiscal Group, from the Dept. of Treasury made it clear to the Senate Select Committee Into The Abbott Government’s Budget Cuts that it was not a treasury document:

Mr Ray : The document is the government's document. We work with the government to prepare it. Generally, this is the government's document, not ours.

By 15 April Dr. Karl had become blunter in his assessment of the situation when quoted by ABC News:

Dr Kruszelnicki blames himself for trusting the Government. He turned to Aesop's Fables to explain himself.

"The scorpion says to the frog, 'can you take me across the flooded river?' And the frog says, 'No, you'll stab me and kill me.'," he said.

"And the scorpion says, 'No, I won't do that because I'll drown myself." And the frog says, 'Yes, you'll drown.' So the frog says, 'hop on my back', takes him half way across the river and then the scorpion stabs him.

"And the frog says, 'Hey, you stabbed me, I'm going to die! And so are you! Why'd you do that? Are you crazy?' And the scorpion said, 'I can't help it. It's my nature.'

"It was my fault for not realising the nature of the beast that I was involved with.

"I really thought that it would be an independent, bipartisan, non-political document."

However, Dr Kruszelnicki said he had not asked for the ad campaign to stop.

Finally that night, Dr. Karl must have realised that his participation in government advertising was an issue with the potential to damage his own reputation and, this was the result:

Unlike the good doctor, The Guardian had the measure of this intergenerational report early and on 9 March 2015 pointed out its glaringly obvious partisan nature:

Every intergenerational report is only as good as the assumptions on which the predictions are based – especially those pertaining to demographics. And while some of the predictions about the ageing population and the implications that will have on employment participation and economic growth are worth considering, the assumptions about government spending over the next 40 years are pretty much a farrago of idiocy.

For no good reason whatsoever, Hockey has decided for the first time to include in the report projection based on policies of the former government. But he takes as the ALP’s “previous policy” that represented in the 2013-14 mid-year economic and fiscal outlook (Myefo) – a document produced by the Abbott government and which saw the 2013-14 deficit increase by $10.26bn due to “policy decisions” taken by the Abbott government.

The 2013-14 Myefo was itself designed to make it appear the ALP had blown the budget, and thus using that as the starting point to predict budget deficits over the next 40 years is a fairly dodgy exercise.